This site makes use of Javascript, please enable your web browser to allow Javascript. Thank you.

Kaye Scholer Secures Significant Victory for ATopTech by Invalidating Key Synopsys Patent Cl…

February 2, 2016

Kaye Scholer IP attorneys in the firm’s Silicon Valley and New York offices secured a significant victory for client ATopTech, Inc. against industry-giant Synopsys on January 19, when the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) issued final decisions striking down numerous claims of two Synopsys patents in the electronic design automation field.  ATopTech was represented by partners Jeffrey Miller and Deborah Fishman, counsel Katie Scott and associate David Soofian.

“We are delighted to have played a role in helping ATopTech defend itself against Synopsys and maintain its competitive position,” said partner Jeffrey Miller. “Kaye Scholer’s extensive experience at the intersection of intellectual property and the technology sector enabled us to help ATopTech prevail before the PTAB.”

In June 2013, Synopsys asserted U.S. Patent Numbers 6,237,127 and 6,567,967 against ATopTech in the Northern District of California. The ’127 patent is directed to static timing analysis software, which is used by engineers to verify proper operation of integrated circuit designs prior to manufacture. The ’967 patent is directed to place and route software used by engineers when laying out integrated circuit designs.

In the inter partes review of the ’127 patent, Kaye Scholer’s attorneys argued that the claims were rendered obvious by prior art previously considered by the patent office. A three-judge PTAB panel agreed, ruling that ATopTech established that the claims under review were obvious over the prior art and, therefore, unpatentable. 

In the inter partes reviews of the ’967 patent, Kaye Scholer’s attorneys argued that the claims of the patent were either anticipated or rendered obvious by newly discovered prior art. A three-judge PTAB panel agreed, ruling that ATopTech had proven that the claims under review that Synopsys asserted against ATopTech were invalid and, thus, unpatentable.

Also of Interest